4 ms·

You forget two things: 1) Our military is largely composed of 18-24 year olds. We would be sending legal children to war. 2) The purpose of democratic voting

You forget two things: 1) Our military is largely composed of 18-24 year olds. We would be sending legal children to war. 2) The purpose of democratic voting is not to decide policy, it is to give legitimacy to policy decisions. When you disenfranchise a large number of people who believe themselves capable of decision-making, and who tend to disagree with the majority opinion, you risk revolts. Note in particular the disastrous consequences of the product of these two issues. 18 is just fine.

austincheney 10y ago
This happens anyways. I joined the US Army at age 17. I think your second point is reactionary to the extreme. It would be more valid if young people participated (actually by voting and/or petitioning the government) instead of just bitching about it on social media. That said young people can revolt just the same regardless of voting age.
- jacalata 10y ago
  I thought there was some caveat like you can join but you can't be sent off to combat until 18? And his point was that if your army is composed of people who aren't allowed to vote you are setting yourself up for higher risk.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    When you join the armed forces they don't just stick a gun in your hand and fly to you Iraq, the training you receive will bring you to 18 before you are deployed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ipnon 10y ago
The article mentions that logical thinking, such as that used when voting for political candidates, is fully developed by 16. Therefore, it would be reasonable to lower the age of citizenship to the age of 16, citizenship being the right to vote and the right to join the armed forces. The author of this article and the scientist who published this research share the same conclusion. It is emotional processing that goes undeveloped until the late 20's.
- goostavos 10y ago
  >It is emotional processing that goes undeveloped until the late 20's Emotion tends to trump cold hard logic -- especially in the young. Actually, hell, not just the young! I'm almost 30 and can't do any meaningful thinking if I'm emotionally upset about something. I'm just saying, I'm not sure how much value I'd place on the logic of a 16 year old in something as emotionally charged as politics.
  - projektir 10y ago
    Emotion is how we process reality. Just because we spend a lot of time with computers that only understand logic doesn't mean that that works for real life. The problem is lack of information, not emotion. Politics is immensely complicated and hard to understand without the right heuristics, and, from what I've seen, age doesn't help here much at all. People just tend to believe whatever most in their bucket believe regardless of age or even education. Logic doesn't seem to do squat, which is actually not surprising if you think about it.
  - tetrep 10y ago
    > I'm not sure how much value I'd place on the logic of a 16 year old in something as emotionally charged as politics. I think the overtly emotional nature of politics is exactly why it doesn't matter if you allow 16 year olds to participate. It's such an extreme that virtually all participants are affected, regardless of how much control they have over their emotions. I wonder if lowering the voting age would shift the "young people don't vote" window lower, or if it wouldn't change at all because it's not that young people don't vote as much as it is that as you grow older you become more invested in your lifestyle and are therefore more likely to vote to protect/preserve/enhance/whatever it.

austincheney 10y ago

This happens anyways. I joined the US Army at age 17. I think your second point is reactionary to the extreme. It would be more valid if young people participated (actually by voting and/or petitioning the government) instead of just bitching about it on social media. That said young people can revolt just the same regardless of voting age.

jacalata 10y ago
I thought there was some caveat like you can join but you can't be sent off to combat until 18? And his point was that if your army is composed of people who aren't allowed to vote you are setting yourself up for higher risk.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  When you join the armed forces they don't just stick a gun in your hand and fly to you Iraq, the training you receive will bring you to 18 before you are deployed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ipnon 10y ago

The article mentions that logical thinking, such as that used when voting for political candidates, is fully developed by 16. Therefore, it would be reasonable to lower the age of citizenship to the age of 16, citizenship being the right to vote and the right to join the armed forces. The author of this article and the scientist who published this research share the same conclusion. It is emotional processing that goes undeveloped until the late 20's.

goostavos 10y ago
>It is emotional processing that goes undeveloped until the late 20's Emotion tends to trump cold hard logic -- especially in the young. Actually, hell, not just the young! I'm almost 30 and can't do any meaningful thinking if I'm emotionally upset about something. I'm just saying, I'm not sure how much value I'd place on the logic of a 16 year old in something as emotionally charged as politics.
- projektir 10y ago
  Emotion is how we process reality. Just because we spend a lot of time with computers that only understand logic doesn't mean that that works for real life. The problem is lack of information, not emotion. Politics is immensely complicated and hard to understand without the right heuristics, and, from what I've seen, age doesn't help here much at all. People just tend to believe whatever most in their bucket believe regardless of age or even education. Logic doesn't seem to do squat, which is actually not surprising if you think about it.
- tetrep 10y ago
  > I'm not sure how much value I'd place on the logic of a 16 year old in something as emotionally charged as politics. I think the overtly emotional nature of politics is exactly why it doesn't matter if you allow 16 year olds to participate. It's such an extreme that virtually all participants are affected, regardless of how much control they have over their emotions. I wonder if lowering the voting age would shift the "young people don't vote" window lower, or if it wouldn't change at all because it's not that young people don't vote as much as it is that as you grow older you become more invested in your lifestyle and are therefore more likely to vote to protect/preserve/enhance/whatever it.